re: energy producing experiments

[Delburt Phend]

The false 'law of conservation of energy' is protected by four false axioms.

I. A spinning rim has no momentum.

II. If you tie a string on a moving mass it gives it more momentum.

III. A small mass can give its energy to a large mass.

IV. When the energy conservation math fails just claim there is heat loss.

[Delburt Phend]

I would suspect that at first angular momentum was done properly. In that the velocity was originally angular velocity not linear velocity. Then a mass with the same linear velocity that is in a smaller circle would have a greater angular velocity; this would be compensated for by the smaller radius. A mass in motion would have half the angular velocity in a double (double the radius) size circle. Triple the radius of the circle and (at the same linear speed) you reduce the angular velocity by 1/3. So L = m * v angular * r   is correct, and it could be conserved. After the concept received acceptance, someone switched angular velocity for linear velocity. No one objected and the concept became false.

You can see the fallacy of the concept when they can find the angular momentum of a mass moving in a straight line. And down the road of fantasy land they went, and they have never come back. 

A pulley changes the direction of the force; so, all of the direction complaints are false. 

Remember the modified Atwood's. The mass that is being stopped is moving in a straight line and the released mass is moving in a straight line. The force direction is changed by the pulley.

[Delburt Phend]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-7d66JscI8

Let's look at the above experiment: 132 grams of spheres stopping and restarting a 1320 gram "cylinder and spheres". When the spheres have all the motion their speed would be 10 times the speed of the rotating cylinder for Newtonian momentum conservation to be true; and 3.16 (square root of ten) times faster for Kinetic energy conservation. Of course, there is no such think as kinetic energy conservation so that puts your theory in jeopardy right away.
I have done frame by frame evaluations of the experiment and the starting speed for the cylinder is about 1.2 m/sec in rotation. This would be 1.320 kg * 1.2 m/sec = 1.584 kg m/sec. This momentum would need the application of 1.584 N applied for 1 sec. This quantity of force times time is contained in the spheres when they have all the motion; because the spheres can return all the motion back to the cylinder.  So 1.584 N applied to the .132 kg spheres for one second would give the spheres a velocity of: 1.584 N / .132 kg = 12 m/sec.
So 12 m/sec velocity is required for Newtonian Momentum conservation; and 3.797 m/sec (12 / square root of ten) is required for energy conservation.
Some falsely claim that Newtonian Physics does no work in a circle and we do not know the velocity of a wheel: it is always zero. This is totally false and is intended to keep you from knowing the truth.
A wheel or rim has a known mass that can be placed in dry ice. We can apply a known force to the rim for a known time.  F = ma; a = v/t So Ft = mv If we know F, t, and m we can find v.  mv is momentum so we can know the momentum of a wheel. Whoever tells you that we cannot know the momentum of a wheel is simple not telling you the truth.

You should ask yourself what is this person's motive for telling you we cannot know the Newtonian momentum of a rim or wheel. Maybe it is because he does not want you to know that you can make energy from gravity. 

[Delburt Phend]

A conversation about mr² and mr

Wow: a lot of questions: I will try to organize the answers in a useful manner.

I don't think you are going in blind (with an open mind) when your equation has R² and r². I think you have predetermined that if the data does not match your equation then the data is wrong. You do not present the alternate formula which would be mr. For you it is mr² and nothing else.

Are you sure that your reliance on symbolic formulas isn't just a means by which you ignore the actual experiment? I think that is the case; the formulas are mr and mr² one is correct and the other is wrong.

But you have some good comments and a few good insights; so I will go through it again.

The beam apparatus can be seen on Home Science Tools; demonstration balance and weights.

The 13.7 g are hangers that are fixed to the beam; they can be adjusted to any location along the beam. The extra mass is hung from the hangers.

So, the original arrangement is two (one on each side) 13.7 g hangers slid up against the center pivot. The distance to their center of mass is 2 cm. The mass of the pivot and beam is not taken into account (assumed to be zero). At first the beam is balanced so placing a small amount of mass on either side will make the beam rotate clockwise or counterclockwise. A reasonable angular acceleration is just a few extra grams on one side. So, if I want to make the right side accelerate upward, I can place 1 gram on the left side. 

The 13.7 g hanger on the right side is then moved to 20 cm radius on the right side. According to mr that will make the right side 10 times harder to accelerate upwards.  According to mr² that will make the right side 100 times harder to accelerate upwards. 

If mr is correct, then the right side will be accelerated upward with (13.7 g * 10) +1 g placed at 2 cm on the left side.

If mr² is correct, then the right side will be accelerated upward with (13.7 g * 100) +1 g placed at 2 cm on the left side.

Internet def: "Moment of inertia also known as the angular mass or rotational inertia can be defined w.r.t. rotation axis, as a quantity that decides the amount of torque required for a desired angular acceleration or a property of a body due to which it resists angular acceleration."

Okay: I choose an acceleration of .01 rad/sec². By moving the 13.7 g to 20 cm the resistance to angular acceleration (to .01 rad/sec²) has been multiplied by 10. This is proven by the FACT that the quantity of torque that is needed to make it rotate counterclockwise had to be increased by 10 times. (142 g at 2cm)

I thought I would do the experiment again just for fun. But this time I changed the mass at 2 cm and then balanced again by moving the 13.7 g out on the right side.

I placed (13.7 + 100 g + 50 g) 163.7 grams at 2 cm. So, this is an increase of 163.7/13.7 = 11.95. This can be balanced again by moving the 13.7 g on the right side out to (2 cm *11.95) 23.9 cm. So, the radius on the right side was increase by 11.95 times and the torque needed to make it again rotate counterclockwise at .01 rad/sec² had to be increase by 11.95 times.

I moved the 13.7 g out to a 23.9 cm radius, and it balance perfectly; by adding a gram or so to the left side it would again rotate .01 rad/sec² counterclockwise.

It is amazing to me that this mr² which is part and parcel to angular momentum had never been experimentally proven. And I can also understand how you have to keep obfuscating and promote mr² because you are part of the system.

Yes, I understand what is going on in the experiment and I don't have to pretend that I don't know. mr is the inertia of the mass and not mr²

[sm0ky2]

Do you have a working machine yet?